60 Models of Creativity : For Studying How Particular Repertoires of Such Models in Creators Affect Their Creativity
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
A One Sentence Overall Synopsis: This paper presents 60 models of creativity, organized as ten sets of six each, found in the minds and work procedures of 150 highly creative people, half US, half global, from 63 diverse strata of society. Models of creativity from academic research corresponding to some of these models were used to change model terminology to reflect common concepts and ideas between them. Research Questions; the Primary Questions: A. What are the various models of creativity in any way now operative in the minds of all creators? How do these differ from academic models of creativity? B. What distinguishes creativity from effectiveness, educatedness and the other 52 orthogonal disciplines--ones cutting across traditional ones and determining who rises to their tops? What relationally and representationally define "creativity" as one of those orthogonal fields? the Secondary Questions: 1. Is creativity one thing or many diverse things? Is creativity one process or many diverse processes? 2. How much of creativity is domain dependent and how much is domain independent? 3. Is the quite general impression and assumption that creativity is one thing not diverse things a result of people going to and depending on the psychology literature too much and missing research on creativity in mechanical engineering, fine arts, performance, media, systems bio and other fields? 4. If creativity is diverse things or processes, are they in trade-off relations to each other so that supports for one or a few, hinder a few or many others? 5. Would creativity improve more by perfecting one's existing model of creating or by adding new models one does not now use or know about? 6. How do scholar models of creativity differ from creator models of their own creativity? 7. Do knowledge models found in experts have an analog found in creators? 8. Does meta-cognition in cognitive psychology have an analog in creativity, namely, some sort of meta-creation? 9. Do creators who are more meta-creative out-create creators who are less meta-creative? 10. How many models of creating are there, if creativity turns out to be diverse things not one thing? 11. How do the models of creativity published by academics differ from the models of creativity we obtain from creators via categorical modeling of interview and questionnaire results? The primary reason this study of creativity models was done was to answer the above questions. The questions above are linked. If creativity is plural things not a single thing, then how you "support" and "encourage" it will be much more complex than if it is merely one thing that one simple environment can "support". The results of this study show that when experts measure how well organization environments support "creativity", unless they distinguish which of the 60 different modes of "being creative" found in the research that this paper reports, they end up assessing very thoroughly how such environments support 1/60th or 3/60ths of the modes of being creative actually there--that is, they miss how well many other modes of being creative are supported, how many such modes are actually there, and how much creativity might improve were modes of being creative not there now to be installed in the future. This paper provides an important tool for assessing just how many types of being creative any one organization has and then, how well each is supported by particular environments. Furthermore, the results of this study show that models of creativity, that creators have, influence how they create and how their ability to create evolves. Therefore, finding models of creating that creators have, as done in this study, adds value missed when we instead just depend on models of creativity from scholars studying it. Knowledge models found in experts, in artificial intelligence research, have their analogs in creation models in creators, in creativity research. Meta-cognition, in psychology in general, has an analog in meta-creation, in creativity, where a creator notices the models of creativity he/she has and how he/she uses them. Since meta-cognition in general improves intelligence and work performance, we can suppose that meta-creation, that is, creators noticing and using creation models in their work, would improve creativity. To test this we need to know what models of creativity any particular creator uses compared to such models used by other creators (and compared to models of creating from academic research). Research Method: 1. My strategy is to use what artificial intelligence "expert systems" research found about determining models inside minds of experts to understand models of creating inside minds of creators and combine those results with using what total quality found about "pleasing" and "satisfying" customers to understand how creators "please" and "satisfy" customers of their creations. 2. A dual recommendation system (from artificial intelligence expert systems research) of 315 eminent people (5 in each of 63 diverse strata of society) nominating 150 "highly creative people" in their own and other fields 3. Total quality customer satisfaction and artificial intelligence protocol analysis combined to make interviews and questionnaires given to these 150 creators (the interviews were mainly to motivate creators to fill in the questionnaires completely), asking them how they create, how that evolves, how much they know about how they create, and encounters with each of these in creators they know 4. Bottom up grouping of similar items in both questionnaires and interview transcripts produces successively smaller, more abstract levels of creativity models 5. The resulting model of 60 models of creativity compared with models of the research literature on creativity and edited to reflect common ideas A stratified sample of 150 creative people, half American, half global, in 63 widely different fields of endeavor were interviewed, using techniques modified from "protocol analysis" techniques of artificial intelligence expert systems building, to obtain models, explicit or implicit in practices, of what "creation" was for each creator. The interview used had twelve specially designed "doorways" intended to be diverse approaches to getting beyond unthinking, mystifying, automatic, and stereotyped ideas about "creation" to actual key factors in models the creators themselves used. Content analysis of transcripts produced 111 creation models that, when categorized by similarity, reduced to 60 creation models organized in ten groups of six models each. Where similar models in the research literature on creativity were found, terminology in the models was modified to make such similarities evident, and elaborations on key concepts from research literature were added to the models. A book summarizing all 60 models was built, with one chapter per model, all chapters using the same format of headings and subheadings. Results: 1. A model of 60 models of creativity, with each model having at least 10 variables defining it This paper has only enough space to present the model of 60 models of creativity and the research that produced that model, along with hypotheses about the role of traits (of the repertoires of models of creativity in creators) in making them creative, to be explored in future research. This paper's result, a model of 60 models of creation, is a prerequisite for verifying the hypotheses.
- 関西学院大学の論文
著者
関連論文
- 32 Capabilities of Highly Effective People in Any Field : Towards Defining Customer Requirements for Educational Institutions, Corporate Universities, and Personal Careers
- 60 Models of Creativity : For Studying How Particular Repertoires of Such Models in Creators Affect Their Creativity